took place in that year: for 900 + 756 = 1656. And this number, so described, was equally expressive of the birth of Noah, the commencement of his reign in the new world, and of the deluge. For, as, in one sense, it explained the year, in which the deluge took place, and consequently the commencement of the reign of the first postdiluvian ruler, so did it in another sense indicate the commencement of his Chou. For, rejecting the cypher, 4320,000 - 3267,000 = 1053*. = 1053*. And it is a very usual thing with oriental nations to make their cypher answer to several events.

The chronology of Couplet is particularly objectional, although in many instances he draws his information from authentic sources. When he confines himself to years before Christ, he is nearly correct in most of his dates; but when he treats of cycles, he is invariably mistaken. And in his genealogical table, he has rendered the very confused account given by the Chinese, still more so, by blending the princes of the old world with those of the new. This, however, was necessary, to support the assertion that Fo-hi, the first-created, was the first ruler of the new world: from this

*The missionaries calculated on this date, placing the year of Christ A. M. 4004; when they state the reign of this emperor at the year B. c. 2952: the current year being always given to the reign of the preceding emperor.

table it appears, that the Chinese descended from Japheth, the eldest son of Noah. For in Table XXIV, it is shewn that Fo-hi, the son of heaven, had three sons, from the first and third of whom, two distinguished lines descended; no notice being taken of the second, except that his name was Hey-en-tou. From the eldest son, the pedigree, like that of the Chaldeans and Hindus, is only traced from the third descent, or the return of Cain, to the deluge. Whereas the family of the third son, answering to Seth, commences with Fo-hi, reaches to the deluge, and is continued in the person of Yau; whose reign commenced after the deluge, or A. M. 1657. Here, of course, the table should have been divided, and the three families should have recommenced with the sons of Noah; instead of which, the missionary, having probably been told that not only the prince himself, but his three sons, were born during the time of the first rulers, of whom Fo-hi was the chief, and forgetting that Noah and his three sons were born during the rule of the antediluvian patriarchs, carries the pedigree forward from Fo-hi, without marking the period when the deluge divided the old from the new world. And reading that Yu was a descendant of the eldest son of the first emperor, that is, of the eldest son of Noah, or Yau, whose Chou began A. M. 1056, he places the first

emperor, of the first Chinese dynasty, as a descendant of the eldest son of Fo-hi (Adam); although he admits that Yu began his reign 143 years after the deluge. From this we may infer that the Chinese descended from Japheth, the eldest son of Noah. Again, at a loss how to dispose of a third race, the missionary engrafts the sons of the second house of Noah, on the stock of the second house of Fo-hi, who had no issue during the antediluvian world. The pedigree of Couplet is like that of Wilford; each collects, with much diligence, names and families, but ruins the whole genealogy, to support the assertion, that the pedigree was postdiluvian; making the first Menu, and Fo-hi, from whom the whole world is said to have been peopled, Noah.

The Chinese profess to be ignorant of the year, when the cycle of 60 was first introduced, although they record that it was invented by Whang-ti, who died more than 700 years before the reign of their first emperor (Yu), who regulated time thereby. From which the missionary supposes the period, which he assigns for the first year of the first cycle, to be the first year of the reign of the prince who invented it. It does not follow, because the cycle was invented by Whang-ti, that it commenced with his reign. On the contrary, Couplet admits that "by the assist

ance of a person named Ta-nu-o he perfected the cycle of 60 years:" clearly evincing, that his reign could not have commenced with the first year of the first cycle, although the year which the missionary states as the first of his reign, was actually the first year of a cycle. A. M. 1309 was, according to the Hindus, the commencement of the ninth cycle. The Chinese profess that Whang-ti, the third ruler of the world in succession, after having regulated his kingdom, created six Kelau, or ministers, to assist in the government thereof; to each of which he assigned the perfecting of some particular science.

Isung-kyan was the mandarin for composing history.

Ta-nue was employed to perfect the cycle of 60.

Yong-ching was enjoined to arrange the sphere and calendar.

Li-chew's office was to regulate numbers and

measures.

Ling-lan was entrusted with the improvement

of music.

Yong-yiven was ordered to form twelve bells to mark the months.

None of the foregoing appear to have been new inventions. On the contrary, mandarins were appointed to perfect those sciences which had pre

viously been invented: it did not require the aid of a scientific minister, to enable Whang-ti to decide on any given number of years, by which time should be divided. By perfecting the cycle, therefore, we can only understand the arrangement of the roots and branches; that is, so to dispose the 10 roots, and 12 branches, that the same numbers should never occur in the same cycle, by which all confusion was prevented ; and for want of which, the Hindus are obliged, even to this day, to assign names to each of the 60 years*. But, whether the cycle was invented or improved by Whang-ti, it is certain that the commencement of his reign could not have been the first year of the first cycle, if the missionary is correct in placing it at the year B. c. 2697, or A. M. 1309. Because the death of Hoam-ti, or Whang-ti, which is the same (being the third, or yellow emperor, who, as the missionary admits, invented the cycle), is placed by the Chinese at A. M. 1140. As Whang-ti was the third from Fo-hi, so was Enos the third from Adam, in the race of Seth; and, according to the Hebrew text, Enos died A. M. 1141; and, according to the Chaldeans, Amillarus the third from Alorus, in the race of Cain, died A. M. 1085. Admitting therefore